Dear Lord, what were they on when they thought this thing up, acid? PCP? Crack? I mean who would not look at this and go, "What the Hell do You do with this thing, guide airplanes?" Why would the U.S. Military take this seriously for even half-a-second? - Kilgore 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and you're using modern sensibilities in your comment. ;) Pal, this is 1940s technology! LOL! Of course it's ungainly, clunky and really ugly. When the powers that be try to create new things, a lot of them will be epic fail. The IR sniper sighting system for this rifle, however, was the basis for newer and newer night vision devices throughout the decades. Ever saw what the first CARS were like, before the Model T?MoviePropMaster2008 02:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand. A few years ago I found an M1 Garand with this kind of scope mounted to it (it was from the late 50's and both the rifle and scope were beat to hell).
This image looks like a non-standard configuration or someone trying to make the rifle look more complicated than it actually was; I've only ever found pictures of M3s with the IR lamp in one or other position, but never both like this. From what I've heard, it could potentially have been useful in the Korean war if it had been more reliable; the Chinese were very fond of night ops. Sadly, there are certain inherent issues with a scope that weighs this much and is only good to 150 (M1 / M2 scope) or 300 (M3 scope) yards, and has you effectively holding a searchlight if anyone with IR optics of their own is watching. Evil Tim 02:55, 20 July 2011 (CDT)
There is no way that's a 1940s IR scope. Evil Tim 10:52, 4 May 2012 (CDT)
I concur. Looks just like a .22 rimfire scope, which would probably work on the M1 Carbine, but certainly NOT an IR scope from the 1940s. MoviePropMaster2008 14:16, 4 May 2012 (CDT)
That is the Weaver 330 riflescope used also on the Springfield M1903A4 in WWII, a 3/4" tube 'scope built to big game 'scope standards, usually 2.2x. Yes, it looks like the early 1950s 3/4" 'scopes popular for .22 rimfires. --Carl N. Brown 20:45, 15 August 2012 (CDT)
En Bloc magazine?
My friend said earlier versions had en bloc magazines with a clip ejector like the Garand, is there any truth to this at all? That's One Angry Duck 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Haven't heard anything about that. As far as I know, this was designed from the beginning to feed from detachable box mags. --HashiriyaR32 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Winchester carbine adopted was always a detachable box magazine design. Larry Ruth's books on the M1 Carbine development are pretty exhaustive, and don't show any en-bloc magazine designs associated with the .30 Carbine. .30 carbine prototypes were submitted for testing by various companies; Springfield submitted a test model designed by Garand with a top feeding detachable box magazine. An AutoOrdnance design would lock the bolt back when empty and drop the magazine; when a loaded magazine was inserted, the bolt was released on the first round. --Carl N. Brown 20:56, 15 August 2012 (CDT)
M1 Conversions?
Does anyone know if there was any M1 Carbines, with 30-round magazines, converted to full-auto but without fire-selector (in factories or in the field) and used in combat in World War II (either Europe or the Pacific)?
Thanks in advance. Z008MJ (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
Assault Rifle?
I don't think the M1 carbine should be classed as an Assault Rifle because technically it isn't Excalibur01 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2014 (EDT)
Erma-Werke EM1 calibers
The section for the EW EM1 states "other versions also existed, including carbines in .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire (WMR) and .22HBA calibers." What is .22HBA? Ive never heard of this being a caliber, rather I believe that the When Iver Johnson imported these rifles they changed the name of the .22LR EM1 and the .22WMR ESG 22 to the Model EW.22HBA and the Model EW.22MHBA respectively (I think the HBA might have had a longer barrel than the standard M1 taking it up to a similar length as the ESG 22 but not sure). I assume this odd model name is where the confusion comes from? --commando552 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
The text is: "The more common Erma Werke rifles are the E M1's 1967-1969 and the EW .22HBA's in 1985. The least common are the .22 magnum versions" (The ERMA-Werke Model E M1 .22 LR Self-Loading Rimfire Rifle (the text is on the bottom of the page). This site seems to be a very complete article about EM1 but maybe I misunderstood the description. I'm not very good in .22 cartridges (personally have dealt only with .22LR) so maybe I was wrong to put it on the page. I'll better delete this info as it's seems to be incorrect. Thanks for the correction. Greg-Z (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
The explanation for the model names is in part one of that article: "In 1986 Iver Johnson's Arms introduced the Model EW.22HBA in .22 LR (the E M1 with a longer barrel) and the EW .22MHBA in .22 WMR (an ESG 22)." What the text you were quoted was saying was basically that the .22LR versions (be they original EM1s or the IJ rebranded .22HBAs) were the most common, with the .22WMR versions (ESG 22 and the rebranded EW.22MHBA) being less common. Also, just FYI about the ID on the Death of a Hoodlum page, the rear sight is indicative of nothing as it is removable to allow you to use a dovetail scope mount underneath it. The more telling parts are the shape of the bolt handle and ejection port which on the film gun match that of the .22LR EM1. --commando552 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
OK, now I understand. Many thanks! Greg-Z (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
Bayonet lug on a WW2 M1 carbine
I caught an interesting forum discussion (with photos) about the M1 Carbine bayonet lug during ww2. Might be interesting for some peeps here. (I have no stake in this personally). Dudester32 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
M3
Is there any way to distinguish an M3 from an M1 other than the IR scope and the vertical grip? In theory, wouldn't you be able to modify any M1 into an M3? --Funkychinaman (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
M3 is an M2, not an M1. But aside from the foregrip, it was just an M2, I think, until they started adding the conical flash hiders in Korea. Evil Tim (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
scoped M1 and M2 Carbines?
There are a lot of discussion on the internet if the M1 and M2 Carbines ever used scopes like the M84 or similar, especially in WW2. I have never found any photographic evidence that this was the case. There are photos of M1 carbines with mounted M84 scopes on the internet but I guess this was done by private persons or civilian armorers post war. So what do you guys think about this topic? Were there any M1 or M2 Carbines fitted with a scope in WW2?--Hchris (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (EDT)
Bolt locking back question
After the last shot is fired from the Carbine, is the bolt supposed to lock back, like to how the M1 Garand and M14 function?--AgentGumby (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
From what I've heard, it does. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
Not really. There is no automatic hold open on the gun itself, but some magazines (30 rounders only I think and probably some aftermarket ones) have a follower that locks the bolt back when they are empty. When you pull out the mag the bolt will instantly drop though, rather than staying open until you hit a release or load a new mag. There is a manual hold open on the M1 carbine on the op rod just above the charging handle that is just a simple plunger that goes into a recess on the receiver wall when pressed down, but this is totally independent of the magazine. --commando552 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2017 (EDT)
Seeing as how .30 carbine is pretty much on par with .357 magnum in terms of ballistics out of a rifle length barrel, I don't think you can reasonably argue it is an intermediate calibre. As there are pistols that are chambered in .30 carbine (real pistols, not Enforcer type things) you could argue it would be an SMG, but it isn't really that either. Perhaps it is an intermediate-intermediate cartridge, between pistol round like 9x19mm and true intermediate cartridges like 7.92×33mm Kurz. It is sort of an odd one out, if you want to throw a name on it you can call it a light rifle or machine carbine. Most people that argue that the M1/M2 is an assault rifle are people trying to argue that the US invented the assault rifle, in the same way that people claiming the Federov is an assault rifle want the Russians to have invented it. As a general rule, if something is accidentally an "assault rifle" using a broad deffintiion that came decades later, then it isn't really an assault rifle, e.g. the Burton 1917 LMR. --commando552 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2020 (EDT)
Expanding on that thought, one could say the M2 is a PDW (P90, MP7 style) in exactly the same way the Burton or Federov are Assault Rifles: They mostly fit, but predate the actual design concept/intent by too much time to really be considered those types. Alex T Snow (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2020 (EDT)
Eh, I wouldn't say that; the M2 was intended as a sort of early PDW, but that's more a role than a true class of firearm (being filled by both SMGs and compact assault rifles; even pistols were used early on); I wouldn't really say that the term/category not existing at the time would make it not an assault rifle, as by that logic the Villar Perosa and MP18 wouldn't be SMGs, the MKb-42 wouldn't be an assault rifle, etc. - if it fits the technical definition, then that's what it is (otherwise, you could argue that the AK was an SMG because it predates the concept of an assault rifle in Russian doctrine and was originally intended to take the role of an SMG, and that's not a can of worms we should be opening). I'd argue that "physically possible to make a pistol in" isn't exactly a rule-out for a rifle cartridge; for instance, while there are pistols in .30 Carbine (that aren't single-shot breechloaders or revolvers, since that would open the door for anything up to .50 BMG), I'd argue that any of those could just as easily be chambered in, say, 7.92x33mm Kurz (which has only a slightly longer OAL) and have roughly the same level of reliability and practicality (i.e. not great); hell, if we throw in more modern technology, you could probably make a functional pistol in 4.73x33mm Caseless, or that 5.56x45mm CT round from the LSAT program. It's definitely edge-case, but if we're trying to be internally consistent, then we'd have to either move the M1 Carbine out of the "Rifle/Intermediate Caliber" section of Category:Carbine and into the "Pistol-Caliber" section, definitively call .30 Carbine an intermediate cartridge (which would make the M2 an assault rifle), or make up some "intermediate-intermediate" category that would really just cause more problems than it solved. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2020 (EDT)
This discussion is totally irrelevent to this page so I won't go too far down the rabbit hole, but I will just point out that you are ignoring the most important aspect, which is the cartridge. As I said, the .30 carbine is basically equivalent to a .357 magnum out of a carbine/rifle length barrel. Would a full auto .357 be an assault rifle by your definition? Do the Thompson SMGs that Auto Ordnance made chambered in .30 carbine become assault rifles? If not, then neither is an M2. --commando552 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2020 (EDT)
Right I'm going to drift back into this debate since I came back to this intensive debate. While I get the point of calling the M2 Carbine a PDW given both the role of the M1 Carbine originally as well as the intermediate nature of the .30 Carbine caliber, I wouldn't go that far down the rabbit hole. The M1 and M2 Carbine weren't issued in the same sense as assault rifles, and realistically trying to push them into the mindset of either an SMG or a assault rifle is not entirely right. The military designation has it as a carbine, even with the selector switch. As a resutl, I'd say keep it in the rifle section. It's just a rifle with select fire capability, but it's not entirely an assault rifle. --PaperCake 22:11, 18 September 2020 (EST)
Bit of a late reply, and a reply to two people at that: regarding Commando's note about the cartridge, while I understand that the ballistics of .30 Carbine are a bit... less than spectacular, it is still an intermediate rifle cartridge by most metrics - including, as mentioned, our own (since we categorize it as a "Rifle/Intermediate Caliber" carbine). As for a full-auto .357 Magnum being an SMG vs. an assault rifle, it's a bit of a tricky question, though I would argue that the latter being explicitly developed as a rimmed revolver cartridge does push it a bit out of the scope of intermediates (and besides, it's a bit of a moot point, as AFAIK there are no full-auto .357s yet). That being said, as ridiculous as it sounds, yes I do think that the .30 Carbine-chambered Thompsons would be considered assault rifles - again, they're select-fire rifles fed, from detachable magazines, chambered for something the site already considers an intermediate cartridge. Same goes for other mag-fed, full-auto .30s too (e.g. the Cristobal M2). And, as for PaperCake's note, I agree that the M2 wasn't issued like a modern assault rifle, but the doctrinal usage of a weapon doesn't change what it is - unless you want to go back through practically every single modern CoD page and remove the note about the AKS-74U's classification as an SMG being incorrect, since it was issued like one; other examples would include the French STA M1924 submachine gun being issued as an LSW (along with a few other interwar SMGs), the BAR and Chauchat being issued in an "automatic rifle" role that most people agree doesn't really exist, early machine guns being issued in a role similar to artillery, the M14 being somehow meant as a replacement for the Garand, the BAR, and the Grease Gun, et cetera. Basically, while I'd agree that it's definitely on the fringes of the category thanks to its lower-end intermediate cartridge, and it wasn't ever issued in the role of a modern assault rifle, it still meets the technical definition of an assault rifle, and should thus be classified as one. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2020 (EDT)
The .30 Carbine is intermediate in that it is between .45 ACP and .30-06. I do not think that necessarily makes it an assault rifle calibre. It is true that by the definition an assault rifle must be chambered in an intermediate cartridge, but that should not necessarily mean any intermediate cartridge is an assault rifle cartridge. That is why IMHO the Federov is not really an assault rifle, as although the 6.5 Arisaka is "intermediate" between the 7.62×38mmR and 7.62×54mmR, it is still pretty much a rifle cartridge, albeit a lighter one. Similarly, the .30 carbine can be still seen at the level of a powerful handgun cartridge. Treating the definition of an assault rifle purely as a set of tick boxes that if something happens to fit suddenly makes it an assault rifle regardless of its design intent or actual use and utility seems a bit arbitrary to me. The most important aspect of an assault rifle is that it can replace both the SMG and battle rifle. The M2 can certainly do the former (as it is pretty much just an SMG with a slightly beefier round) but it absolutely cannot replace the battle rifle as its range is limited to only 200m or so. If it cannot function in the true assault rifle role, I do not think that it should be defined as such. As for stuff like the Thompson Light Rifle and Cristobal meeting your definition of an assault rifle, the sheer fact that these are both jsut SMG actions that have been modified to take the .30 carbine should say something to you about the power of that cartridge not being up to assault rifle levels. --commando552 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Well, first of all, the main point that I'm making with regards to the cartridge is that this site already considers .30 Carbine an intermediate rifle cartridge (with the M1 Carbine sitting between the LWRC M6A2 and the M4 on the Category:Carbine page, and the Cristobal being up there as well), so if we wanted to be internally consistent, we'd have to either change that or accept the M2 Carbine as an assault rifle. And regarding the whole SMG action thing, I wouldn't really say that that decides much - the Cristobal's action was lever-delayed blowback, an action type also used in rifle-caliber firearms (e.g. the FAMAS), and even the Cristobal itself was at one point offered in 7.62x51mm NATO; as for the Thompson, its action was scaled all the way up to .30-06 Springfield on at least one occasion (largely because Auto-Ordnance still firmly believed that the Blish Principle was actually real); hell, even the stereotypical SMG action (i.e. tube-receiver, straight-blowback) has been used in rifle-caliber guns on at least a few occasions (the Winchester 1905/07/10 series, the Ribeyrolles 1918, and if you want to really push the envelope, the Oerlikon 20mm cannon). Like I said, I agree that it's an edge-case, but the site already agrees that it has all the characteristics of an assault rifle, so we'd either need to move any rifles in .30 Carbine to the pistol-caliber section of Category:Carbine, or properly designate the M2 as an assault rifle if we want to be consistent with ourselves. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2020 (EDT) P.S.: Thank you for moving this discussion; I was getting a bit concerned about having this all on the BOCW page.
It's not a perfect world so not everything is going to fit into neat discrete boxes. On the carbine page the only options are intermediate/rifle or pistol cartridges. Even though .30 carbine has been used in pistols it is not primarily a pistol cartridge so it would be odd to put it in there, so the only option is the other category. To be fair it is a "rifle" cartridge, just a low powered one. In the same way that .22 hornet is a rifle cartridge. There are hundreds of "rifle" cartridges, intended primarily for small game hunting, that are between "pistol" and "battle rifle" calibres, but are absolutely not "assault rifle" calibres. Like I said before, just because something fits between 9x19mm and 7.62x51mm making it "intermediate" does not mean it will work as an assault rifle round. e.g. .30 carbine is too weak, 6.5 Arisaka is too powerful. As for the SMG/action strength thing, it is kind of irrelevant if there have been elver delayed rifles and straight blowback cannons, as they are not built off of pistol actions. The Thompson Light Rifle was built from a .45 action just with lengthened receiver for different mags, and the Cristobal M2 was built off of a 9mm Mauser Export gun. They are not just based on the same type of action, they are a re-chambering of a pistol calibre strength action that still works with .30 carbine. Also, don't think the M2 was scaled up to 7.62x51mm, I think you are thinking of the M3 which was a different design using a gas system. Lastly, to throw some context in here look at this image of some different cartridges. As you can see the .30 carbine is pretty much identical in size to the .357 Magnum (a definite pistol round), and is actually slightly smaller in diameter. Technically you can actually get .357 Magnum cartridges that are more powerful than .30 carbine. --commando552 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
I think I see the issue here. We're going at this with different ideas of what an intermediate rifle round is (at least in the context of the definition of an assault rifle) - I was using the idea that an intermediate rifle cartridge is anything too large/powerful to be considered a pistol round, but too small/weak to be a full-power rifle round, and thus that any select-fire, detachable-magazine-fed rifle chambered for such a cartridge qualifies as an assault rifle; you were using a narrower definition of the concept of a "true" (i.e. assault-rifle-grade) intermediate cartridge that leaves a "gap" of cartridges that aren't really pistol cartridges (or, at least, not normal ones), but aren't powerful enough to be considered proper intermediate rounds that an assault rifle could be chambered for. For example, by my definition, since .22 Hornet is a rifle cartridge, but isn't a full-power rifle cartridge, it's an intermediate, making a full-auto .22 Hornet rifle an assault rifle; by your definition, .22 Hornet is in between a pistol cartridge and a full-power rifle cartridge, but isn't powerful enough to warrant being classified as a military/assault rifle-type intermediate cartridge, putting it in a different subcategory that doesn't really have a special name, and making a full-auto .22 Hornet rifle an automatic rifle/carbine that doesn't really fit any existing category. Am I understanding this correctly? Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Pretty much, yes. Your are going by the logic that with full auto guns there is a straight progression between SMGs, assault rifles and battle rifles, and everything will fit into one of these categories depending on the cartridge (with PDWs thrown in somewhere along the way). Broadly speaking this is true, but unfortunately there will always be odd ones out that do not fit fully into any one of these categories. The issue with the M2 is that it straddles the SMG, PDW and rifle categories without really fitting one clean definition, the only unarguable thing you can say is that it is a "rifle". Part of the weirdness with the M2 is displayed by the fact that if you were to look at a semi auto M4 or M16 you would say "yeah, that would clearly be an assault rifle if it was full auto", but I doubt anybody would honestly say this about the M1. This is because in the aspects other than it being select fire, the M2 doesn't have the capability that a real assault rifle would have. --commando552 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2020 (EDT)
Eh, I'm not entirely satisfied, but I can accept that it really doesn't fit the category that well. That's the issue with a lot of these things, at the end of the day - we make categories to fit guns, not the other way around, so there will always be edge-case guns that don't fit into any one category all that well; a good example would be the MG08/15 - it's not an HMG because it was designed to be carried by one person and fired from a bipod, it's not an LMG because it's water-cooled and weighs 40 pounds, it's not a GPMG because it predates the concept entirely (and can't be used in all the roles a GPMG is supposed to be), it kinda just... is. I'd still contend that, if you had to put it into a category more specific than just "rifle", then assault rifle would be the best fit, but I guess the main issue at the end of the day is the prerequisite of that statement - if we have to put it into a more specific category, or if we're content just calling it a "rifle". Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (EDT) P.S.: Man, if only this was as simple as phylogenetic - we could just sequence its genome and determine what category to put it into from there. Then again, if that were how things worked, they'd probably be related by mechanical function, rather than class or role... damn, now I wanna make a complete phylogenetic tree of guns. Could be a neat project, once I have some more free time.
